Journal of Public Administration and Governance

ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

Adaptability Features, Proactivity, and Change

Readiness: An Empirical Investigation of Public Sector
Organisations
Fee Cheng Tan (Corresponding author)
Putra Business School, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: feecheng.phd15@grad.putrabs.edu.my

Devika Nadarajah
Putra Business School, Universiti Putra Malaysia
43400 UPM Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
E-mail: devika@putrabs.edu.my

Received: Nov. 29, 2020 Accepted: Dec. 29, 2020 Online published: Jan. 15, 2021
doi:10.5296/jpag.v11i1.18006 URL: https://doi.org/10.5296/jpag.v11i1.18006

Abstract
This study examined the mediating role of proactivity in the effects of five adaptability
features (i.e. work stress coping, creativity, dealing with uncertainty, training and learning,
and interpersonal adaptability) on employees‟ change readiness. A total of 379 employees of
public sector organisations in Malaysia participated in the study. Partial Least
Squares-Structural Equation Modelling (PLS-SEM) was employed to analyse the proposed
model. The results indicate that out of the five adaptability features, three (dealing with
uncertainty, training and learning, and interpersonal adaptability) significantly predict
proactivity. Proactivity was also found to mediate the effects of these three adaptability
features on change readiness. This paper contributes to the change readiness literature by
identifying proactivity as mediator in the relationship between adaptability features and
change readiness, which has received relatively scant attention. Practical and theoretical
contributions are discussed.
Keywords: change readiness, adaptability, proactivity, proactive, public sector

85 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

1. Introduction
Change management in public sector organisations is far more difficult than in private sector
organisations due to the diverging interests of various stakeholders, such as public and private
organisations, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and politicians (Kuipers et al., 2014;
van der Voet et al., 2015). The role of public sector organisations is highly important as they
are entrusted with the responsibility to provide varied services to the people and to guide the
nation towards sustainable development. However, Malaysian public sector employees faced
a whole new challenge in public governance and administration after the change of
government in 2018 (Wong, 2018). Managing change in human behaviour, especially in
Malaysian public organisations, is therefore even more complex as the sector had been under
the administration of the same government for more than 60 years.
Following the change of government, several major change initiatives have taken place in the
Malaysian public sector, such as ministry restructuring, reengineering of work procedures,
and staff reshuffling. In the early stage of change, public sector organisations had to operate
within an uncertain and volatile work environment (Bernama, 2018; Kaur, 2018; Sivanandam,
2019). This dynamic work environment requires employees to be ready for change to ensure
an effective delivery system as well as high-performing public service (Zulfakar, 2018).
Promoting readiness for change among employees can nonetheless be difficult. Prior studies
suggest that employee adaptability may affect change readiness (Baard et al., 2015; Cullen et
al., 2014; van Dam, 2013). However, limited research has examined how specific dimensions
of adaptability promote individual proactivity, even though scholars (e.g. Griffin et al., 2007;
van Dam, 2013) have emphasized the importance of adaptability for employees‟ change
readiness. Moreover, studies on the mediation effect of proactivity on the nexus between
adaptability features and change readiness are scarce.
To fulfil these research gaps, the present study aimed to extend the academic literature on
change management by examining the effect of adaptability features on individual proactivity,
specifically to find out which adaptability features promote individual proactivity and how
that translates to change readiness among Malaysian public sector employees.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Change Readiness
According to Armenakis et al. (1993), change readiness is “the cognitive precursor to the
behaviour of either resistance to, or support for, a change effort.” It is an individual‟s
willingness to undertake a change initiative (Armenakis et al., 1993; Rafferty et al., 2013).
Change success depends on the degree to which employees are willing to adjust their
behaviour to align with the envisaged change (Ghitulescu, 2013). As such, previous studies
(e.g. Bouckenooghe, 2009; Mueller et al., 2012; Stevens, 2013) have argued that creating
employee readiness for change is crucial in the change process. If employees are not ready,
they may reject the change and develop negative reactions like resistance or sabotage. In
other words, when readiness exists, employees‟ resistance to change is reduced; consequently,
change implementation is smoother and more effective (Drzensky et al., 2012; Vakola, 2013).

86 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

2.2 Adaptability
Adaptability refers to an individual‟s ability to adjust his/her behaviours in a changing
environment, which is a trait-like factor likely to predict effective behaviours in the change
process (Ployhart & Bliese, 2006). According to Schmitt and Chan (2014), an adaptive
employee is one who has the capability and motivation to adapt. In the year 2000, Pulakos
and his colleagues introduced eight dimensions of adaptability via their study on military
personnel. Their works was advanced by Charbonnier-Voirin and Roussel (2012), who
presented five dimensions of adaptability (i.e. work stress coping, creativity, dealing with
uncertainty, training and learning, and interpersonal adaptability) that are more applicable
across various organisational and work contexts. The five dimensions, or features, of
adaptability and their definitions are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Five Features of Adaptability

Dimensions Definition
Dealing with uncertainty Taking effective action by adjusting plans, goals, or actions
to deal with dynamic situations.
Creativity Generating innovative ideas and solving complex
problems.
Work stress coping Remaining calm when dealing with stressful
circumstances.
Interpersonal adaptability Being flexible when dealing with new teams and
co-workers to work effectively with them.
Training and learning Anticipating learning new knowledge and skills needed by
work requirements.

Note. Adapted from Pulakos et al. (2000) and Pulakos et al. (2002)
2.3 Proactivity
In this study, proactivity is a synonym for a proactive personality, that is defined as a personal
disposition toward proactive behaviour wherein individuals show the initiative to act upon
environmental change (Bateman & Crant, 1993; Crant, 2000). Proactive employees are more
motivated as they take personal initiative, especially during times of change (Crant et al.,
2017). In the context of organisational change, proactive employees actively act on
opportunities and take preemptive actions to improve change efforts. This means that they
take control and act in advance against potential problems and threats caused by the change
process.
2.4 Research Framework and Hypotheses
Figure 1 depicts the research framework of this study, which is underpinned by Lewin‟s
(1947) change model. According to Lewin (1947), the change process occurs in three stages,
i.e. unfreezing, moving, and refreezing. The first stage involves alerting employees about the
change that might happen in the near future and assisting them in gaining the necessary skills

87 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

and knowledge that foster their ability to adapt. This is to ensure employees are prepared
when the change is implemented. In the second stage, change is taking place. To resolve
uncertainty, employees are likely to rely on the skills and knowledge acquired in the first
stage to actively look for new ways to do things. They begin to familiarise themselves with
the „new normal‟ and act in ways that support the change, which directly leads them to the
third stage, refreezing, where they are ready to embrace the change.
According to van Dam (2013), adaptability is likely to nurture positive behaviour, like
proactivity, in a changing environment. In the context of a dynamic environment, when
employees encounter problems or challenges, they may rely on their confidence and ability to
adapt to new activities. This ability to adapt helps employees deal with the changing
environment without difficulties (Collie & Martin, 2016), and thus promotes their proactivity.
As indicated by Waugh (2018), adaptability is an essential work skill that ensures employees
act proactively and ready themselves for change. Employees who display a high level of
adaptability, for example by being open-minded and remaining calm when dealing with
stressful change activities, are more likely to take personal initiative and leverage available
resources to prevent problems. This would make them respond promptly and act
appropriately in accepting change. In contrast, employees who exhibit low adaptability
through their incapability to deal with uncertainty or learn new skills are likely to be
demotivated, which subsequently hinders their proactivity. Without new skills and knowledge,
employees face difficulties in taking self-directed action towards anticipating and embracing
change in the work system. This is because they do not know why, what, or how to do things
in new ways, which limits their motivation to act proactively in seeking the significant tools,
methods, and new means to promote their state of change readiness. Hence, the inability to
adapt affects employees‟ proactivity, which in turn, leads to a low level of change readiness.
Accordingly, the following hypotheses were developed:
H1 : Work stress coping has a significant positive effect on proactivity.
H2 : Creativity has a significant positive effect on proactivity.
H3 : Dealing with uncertainty has a significant positive effect on proactivity.
H4 : Training and learning has a significant positive effect on proactivity.
H5 : Interpersonal adaptability has a significant positive effect on proactivity.
H6 : Proactivity has a significant positive effect on change readiness.
H7 : There is a mediation effect of proactivity on the relationship between work stress coping
and change readiness.
H8 : There is a mediation effect of proactivity on the relationship between creativity and
change readiness.
H9 : There is a mediation effect of proactivity on the relationship between dealing with
uncertainty and change readiness.
H10: There is a mediation effect of proactivity on the relationship between training and

88 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

learning and change readiness.

H11: There is a mediation effect of proactivity on the relationship between interpersonal
adaptability and change readiness.

Adaptability

- Stress coping
- Creativity Proactivity Change Readiness
- Uncertainty
- Learning
- Interpersonal

Figure 1. Research Framework

3. Method
3.1 Sample
The sample of this study comprised administrative and diplomatic officers (ADOs) working
in Malaysian federal ministries. With the agreement of the person-in-charge at the respective
ministries, representatives were assigned to distribute the study questionnaires to respondents
who were selected using simple random sampling. With the help of the representatives, a total
of 500 sets of online questionnaires were emailed to the selected samples. Out of these, 379
returned questionnaires were usable for data analysis after discarding seven outliers.
A frequency analysis indicated that 168 participants were male and 211 were female. A
majority of them were in the age bracket of 31 to 40 years old (58.3%). About half (50.9%)
were junior officers (i.e. Grades 41 and 44), while the rest were senior officers (i.e. Grades 48
to 54). In terms of length of public service, most respondents (79.7%) had more than five
years of work experience in public organisations. The remaining 20.3 percent had less than
five years of work experience in the sector.
3.2 Measurements
To measure change readiness, three items were adapted from Bouckenooghe et al.‟s (2009)
scale. The items measured the extent to which an individual is willing to embrace a change
initiative. Ten items were adapted from the scale developed by Seibert et al. (2001) to
measure proactivity. These items assessed an individual‟s proclivity to take personal initiative
to thrive in any change activity. Finally, a total of 19 items were adapted from
Charbonnier-Voirin and Roussel‟s (2012) work to measure the five dimensions of adaptability,
which are (1)work stress coping (3 items); (2) creativity (4 items); (3) dealing with
uncertainty (4 items); (4) training and learning (4 items); and interpersonal adaptability (4
items). All the measurement items were written in English. A seven-point Likert scale ranging
from (1) strongly disagree to (7) strongly agree was used as the response scale for all the
measures.

89 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

4. Findings
The data of this study was analyzed via Partial Least Squares-Structural Equation Modelling
(PLS-SEM) with the SmartPLS 3.0 application. The constructs‟ reliability and validity were
first established in the measurement model evaluation. Subsequently, hypotheses testing was
performed in the structural model assessment.
4.1 Assessment of Measurement Model
The constructs in this study, which were all first-order reflective measures, were assessed for
internal consistency as well as convergent and discriminant validity. As depicted in Table 2,
the composite reliability (CR) of each variable was above the threshold value of 0.70. Hence,
internal consistency of the constructs was established. Moreover, the significance of item
loadings should be higher than the recommended benchmark of 0.70. Three items (i.e. AC1,
P3 and P6) did not meet this criterion. However, these items were retained based on Hair et
al.‟s (2017) recommendation that items with loadings between 0.40 and 0.70 can be retained
if their CR and average variance extracted (AVE) values are higher than the threshold values
of 0.70 and 0.50, respectively. Therefore, no items were omitted from further analyses. The
variables‟ convergent validity was further confirmed through the assessment of the AVE,
which reported that all variables‟ AVE values exceeded the threshold of 0.50.
Table 2. Internal Consistency (Reliability) and Convergent Validity Results
Variable Item Loading CR AVE M SD
> 0.70 > 0.70 > 0.50
Work stress coping AS1 0.820 0.871 0.693 5.515 0.798
AS2 0.837
AS3 0.841
Creativity AC1 0.693 0.863 0.613 5.213 0.777
AC2 0.793
AC3 0.818
AC4 0.821
Dealing with uncertainty AU1 0.825 0.907 0.709 5.421 0.796
AU2 0.842
AU3 0.876
AU4 0.824
Training & learning AT1 0.709 0.881 0.651 5.278 0.825
AT2 0.827
AT3 0.828
AT4 0.855

Interpersonal AP1 0.772 0.901 0.695 5.935 0.689

adaptability AP2 0.856
AP3 0.853
AP4 0.851

90 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

Proactivity Pro1 0.758 0.930 0.574 5.519 0.712

Pro2 0.796
Pro3 0.689
Pro4 0.797
Pro5 0.802
Pro6 0.600
Pro7 0.821
Pro8 0.801
Pro9 0.762
Pro10 0.720
Change readiness C1 0.913 0.950 0.864 5.778 0.774
C2 0.938
C3 0.937

Note: CR = Composite reliability; AVE = Average variance extracted; M = Mean; SD =

Standard deviation.
Next, discriminant validity for each variable was evaluated through the Heterotrait-Monotrait
ratio (HTMT). According to Henseler et al. (2015), all the correlation values between
variables should be less than the threshold value of 0.90. Table 3 shows that all the values met
this criterion. Moreover, all independent variables also had variance inflation factor (VIF)
values below the cut-off value of five as suggested by Hair et al. (2017). The results thus
provided adequate evidence that discriminant validity was achieved for all constructs.
Table 3. Discriminant Validity Results

Variable VIF 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
1. Change readiness - -
2. Creativity 2.956 0.553 -
3. Interpersonal 1.608 0.624 0.605 -
adaptability
4. Proactivity 1.000 0.655 0.683 0.633 -
5. Work stress coping 2.084 0.548 0.853 0.621 0.581 -
6. Training & learning 2.287 0.677 0.837 0.670 0.730 0.674 -
7. Uncertainty 2.628 0.578 0.879 0.628 0.700 0.764 0.776 -
Note. Discriminant validity is established at HTMT.90; VIF = Variance inflation factor
4.2 Assessment of Structural Model
Following confirmation of the constructs‟ reliability and validity, a blindfolding procedure
(omission distance of six) was performed to determine the predictive relevance (Q2) of the
structural model. Table 4 depicts that both endogenous variables (i.e. proactivity and change
readiness) exhibited adequate predictive relevance as their Q2 values were greater than zero
as per the criterion proposed by Hair et al. (2017).
Besides that, the model‟s predictive power was assessed through the coefficient of

91 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

determination (R2) and effect size of the exogenous variables. Table 4 shows that 52.7 percent
of the variance in proactivity was explained by the five exogenous variables (i.e. work stress
coping, creativity, dealing with uncertainty, training and learning, and interpersonal
adaptability). Meanwhile, proactivity explained 36.9 percent of the variance in change
readiness. In terms of effect size, work stress coping did not show any effect on proactivity,
while the other exogenous variables displayed a small effect on proactivity.
Table 4. Results of Model Predictive Power

Variables R2 Q2 f2
Change readiness 0.369 0.314 -
Proactivity 0.527 0.295 -
Work stress coping - - 0.000
Creativity - - 0.007
Dealing with uncertainty - - 0.049
Training & learning - - 0.071
Interpersonal adaptability - - 0.058
Note. R2= coefficient of determination; Q2 = Predictive relevance; f2 = Effect size.
The hypothesised relationships were tested via a bootstrapping procedure with 5000
re-samples (Hair et al., 2017). The analysis found that out of the five independent variables,
only work stress coping and creativity were not significant in predicting proactivity.
Meanwhile, proactivity was found to significantly influence change readiness. Hence, for the
direct effects, only H1 and H2 were not supported. Regarding the mediation effect of
proactivity, the results revealed that the effects of dealing with uncertainty, training and
learning, and interpersonal adaptability on change readiness were mediated by proactivity.
However, the indirect effects of work stress coping and creativity on change readiness via
proactivity were found to be insignificant. Therefore, H7 and H8 were not supported. The
hypotheses testing results are presented in Table 5.
Table 5. Hypotheses Testing: Direct and Indirect Effects
Hypotheses β t-value Supported
H1 Work stress coping → Proactivity 0.017 0.310 No
H2 Creativity → Proactivity 0.101 1.548 No
H3 Dealing with uncertainty → Proactivity 0.248** 3.703 Yes
H4 Training & learning → Proactivity 0.278** 5.516 Yes
H5 Interpersonal adaptability → Proactivity 0.215** 4.489 Yes
H6 Proactivity → Change readiness 0.607** 15.912 Yes
H7 Work stress coping → Proactivity → Change 0.010 0.309 No
readiness
H8 Creativity → Proactivity → Change readiness 0.062 1.545 No
H9 Dealing with uncertainty → Proactivity → Change 0.150** 3.637 Yes
readiness
H10 Training & learning → Proactivity → Change 0.169** 5.007 Yes

92 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

readiness
H11 Interpersonal adaptability → Proactivity → 0.131** 4.165 Yes
Change readiness

Note. β = Path coefficient; The Italic hypotheses represent indirect effects; **Significant at p<0.01.

5. Discussion and Conclusion

Underpinned by Lewin‟s (1947) change model, the present study argued that adaptability
features initiate proactivity, which in turn enhances change readiness. The empirical results
indicate that only three adaptability features (i.e. dealing with uncertainty, training and
learning, and interpersonal adaptability) improve change readiness via proactivity. This
means public sector employees are more ready for change if they exhibit proactivity
stemming from their ability to (1) deal with uncertain situations, (2) work with different
people, and (3) learn new knowledge and skills. Practically, these three adaptability features
are crucial for public sector employees to thrive in dynamic circumstances, especially in
today‟s Malaysian public sector. To be ready for any change, human resource (HR) managers
and practitioners should ensure that their workplace has a system to support knowledge
sharing and empower employees to learn from others. Adaptability leads employees to
proactively experiment with new methods of completing their tasks. If employees stay
adaptable and proactive, they will be flexible in confronting any change; thus, organisational
change efforts would succeed.
Theoretically, the present study adds value to the change readiness literature by shedding
light on the connections between adaptability features, proactivity, and change readiness that
have been neglected by previous scholars. Moreover, this study extends the application of
Lewin‟s (1947) change model to a wider range of organisational contexts and respondents. In
particular, it illuminates how employees‟ proactivity is a result of their ability to adapt, as
well as how proactivity translates such adaptability into change readiness in the context of the
public sector. Overall, the study has provided empirical evidence that aligns this study‟s
arguments with the assumptions of Lewin‟s (1947) change model.
Nevertheless, this study is subject to limitations. Though it was found that adaptability
features substantially explained the variance in change readiness (R2 = 52.7%), upcoming
research should incorporate other relevant factors to better understand what impacts
proactivity and change readiness. Future studies may also expand this study‟s framework to
different contexts to enrich the change management literature.
In conclusion, this study has presented empirical evidence that contributes to the limited
literature on the links between adaptability features, proactivity, and change readiness.
Specifically, this study established three adaptability features that significantly spur
individuals‟ proactivity and thereby indirectly enhance their change readiness in the dynamic
context of the Malaysian public sector.
References
Armenakis, A. A., Harris, S. G., & Mossholder, K. W. (1993). Creating readiness for
organizational change. Human Relations, 46(6), 681-703.

93 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

https://doi.org/10.1177/001872679304600601
Baard, S. K., Rench, T. A., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2014). Performance adaptation: A
theoretical integration and review. Journal of Management, 40(1), 48-99.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206313488210
Bateman, T., & Crant, J. M. (1993). The proactive component of organizational behavior: A
measure and correlates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 14(2), 103-118.
https://doi.org/10.1002/job.4030140202
Bernama. (2018, September 5). Civil servants no longer need blindly follow orders. New
Straits Times. https://www.nst.com.my/news/government-public-policy/2018/09/408507/
civil-servants-no-longer-need-blindly-follow-orders
Bouckenooghe, D., Devos, G., & van den Broeck, H. (2009). Organizational change
questionnaire-climate of change, processes, and readiness: Development of a new instrument.
The Journal of Psychology, 143(6), 559-599. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980903218216
Charbonnier-Voirin, A., & Roussel, P. (2012). Adaptive performance: A new scale to measure
individual performance in organizations. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 29(3),
280-293. https://doi.org/10.1002/CJAS.232
Collie, R. J., & Martin, A. J. (2016). Adaptability: An important capacity for effective
teachers. Educational Practice and Theory, 38(1), 27-39. https://doi.org/10.7459/ept/38.1.03
Cullen, K. L., Edwards, B. D., Casper, W. C., & Gue, K. R. (2014). Employees‟ adaptability
and perceptions of change-related uncertainty: Implications for perceived organizational
support, job satisfaction, and performance. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29(2),
269-280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9312-y
Crant, J. M. (2000). Proactive behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management, 26(3),
435-462. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(00)00044-1
Crant, J. M., Hu, J., & Jiang, K. (2017). Proactive personality: A twenty-year review. In
Parker, S. K. & Bindl, U. K. (Eds) Proactivity at work: Making things happen in
organizations, (pp. 193-225). Routledge.
Drzensky, F., Egold, N., & Van Dick, R. (2012). Ready for a change? A longitudinal study of
antecedents, consequences and contingencies of readiness for change. Journal of Change
Management, 12(1), 95-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2011.652377
Ghitulescu, B. E. (2013). Making change happen: The impact of work context on adaptive
and proactive behaviors. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(2), 206-245.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886312469254
Griffin, M. A., Neal, A., & Parker, S. K. (2007). A new model of work role performance:
Positive behavior in uncertain and interdependent contexts. Academy of Management Journal,
50(2), 327-347. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2007.24634438
Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2017). A Primer on Partial Least

94 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS-SEM). Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant
validity in variance-based structural euation modeling. Journal of the Academy Marketing
Science, 43(1), 115-135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
Kaur, M. (2018, December 13). Mutual distrust bubbles between civil servants and ministers.
Free Malaysia Today. https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/nation/2018/12/13/
mutual-distrust-bubbles-between-civil-servants-and-ministers/
Kuipers, B. S., Higgs, M., Kickert, W., Tummers, L., Grandia, J., & Van Der Voet, J. (2014).
The management of change in public organizations: A literature review. Public
Administration, 92(1), 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12040
Lewin, K. (1947). Frontiers in Group Dynamics: Concept, Method and Reality in Social
Science; Social Equilibria and Social Change. Human Relations, 1(5), 5-41.
https://doi.org/10.1177/001872674700100103
Mueller, F., Jenny, G. J., & Bauer, G. F. (2012). Individual and organizational health oriented
readiness for change. International Journal of Workplace Health Management, 5(3), 220-236.
https://doi.org/10.1108/17538351211268872
Ployhart, R. E., & Bliese, P. D. (2006). Individual adaptability (I-ADAPT) theory:
Conceptualizing the antecedents, consequences, and measurement of individual differences in
adaptability. In C. Shawn Burke., L. G. Pierce, & E. Salas (Eds), Understanding adaptability:
A prerequisite for effective performance within complex environments (Advances in Human
Performance and Cognitive Engineering Research, 6, pp. 3-39).
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1479-3601(05)06001-7
Pulakos, E. D., Arad, S., Donovan, M. A., & Plamondon, K. E. (2000). Adaptability in the
workplace: Development of a taxonomy of adaptive performance. The Journal of Applied
Psychology, 85(4), 612-624. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.4.612
Pulakos, E. D., Schmitt, N., Dorsey, D. W., Arad, S., Borman, W. C., & Hedge, J. W. (2002).
Predicting adaptive performance: Further tests of a model of adaptability. Human
Performance, 15(4), 299-323. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1504_01
Rafferty, A. E., Jimmieson, N. L., & Armenakis, A. A. (2013). Change readiness: A multilevel
review. Journal of Management, 39(1), 110-135. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206312457417
Schmitt, N., & Chan, D. (2014). Adapting to rapid changes at work: Definitions, measures,
and research. In D. Chan (Ed.), Individual Adaptability to changes at Work: New Directions
in Research (pp. 1–211). Routledge.
Seibert, S., Kraimer, M. L., & Crant, J. M. (2001). What do proactive people do? A
longitudinal model linking proactive personality and career success. Personnel Psychology,
54, 845-874.
Sivanandam, H. (2019, January 31). Daim: All must work together. The Star.

95 http://jpag.macrothink.org
 Journal of Public Administration and Governance
ISSN 2161-7104
2021, Vol. 11, No. 1

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2019/01/31/daim-all-must-work-together-consult-ci
vil-servants-to-resolve-countrys-problems-ministers-told/
Stevens, G. W. (2013). Toward a process-based approach of conceptualizing change readiness.
The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 49(3), 333-360.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886313475479
Vakola, M. (2013). Multilevel readiness to organizational change: A conceptual approach.
Journal of Change Management, 13(1), 96-109.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14697017.2013.768436
van Dam, K. (2013). Employee adaptability to change at work: A multidimensional,
resource-based framework. In S. Oreg, A. Michel, & R. T. By (Eds), The psychology of
organizational change: Viewing change from the employee’s perspective (pp. 123-142).
Cambridge University Press.
van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B., & Groeneveld, S. (2015). Held back and pushed forward:
leading change in a complex public sector environment. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 28(2), 290-300. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOCM-09-2013-0182
Waugh, R. (2018). Why adaptability is key to success.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/connect/better-business/business-solutions/adaptability-in-the-w
orkplace/
Wong, C. H. (2018). The rise, resilience and demise of Malaysia‟s dominant coalition. The
Round Table, 107(6), 755-769.
Zulfakar, M. (2018, May 21). Dr M is disappointed with the civil service but hopeful it can
shine again. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2018/
05/21/dr-m-is-disappointed-with-the-civil-service-but-hopeful-it-can-shine-again

Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

96 http://jpag.macrothink.org